First off, this notion of bankruptcy being the only way of getting to get out of the contract is ridiculous. We are not talking what a contract for purchase of a car or a house or any other my item. We are discussing a standard players contract and collective-bargaining agreement that follow the rules of the employment contract not purchase contract. They are not one and the same and should not be treated as one ad the same. It's no different from any other company that works with unionized workforce. When there's a point in time when the contract is expired both sides get to negotiate. If they cannot agree during negotiations the owners lockout or the workers strike. That's what's happening here not this ridiculous notion of the NHL going bankrupt to get out of contracts.

Now, I just read a fantastic article and possibly one of the most unbiased articles I have read regarding the lockout. If you read this article start to finish and don't form any conclusions while the article you will likely realize both sides have had opportunities to fix the situation, both sides are right, and both sides are wrong.

Ok Beans, you are right it is not the same thing, but if the NHL owners can offer these contracts and then not full fill them because the CBA expired, then the players should be given the option to opt out of these contracts and become UFA's. If the Owners can just negociate there way out of contracts they offerd then why can't the players just void the contracts? I mean it goes one way why not the other.

The Following is from an article on Yahoo by Trent Reinsmith, and it to me anyway makes a lot of sense,

"This idea is very intriguing, and while not a home run for either side, it eventually gets everyone close to where they want to be. The way Fehr has the offer worded, players currently under contract would have 87 percent of that contract go against the salary cap, while 13 percent would not go against the cap.

This would allow the cap to shrink immediately while still allowing the players to get what is fairly and legally theirs. It will also allow salaries to fall in line as new contracts would be signed with the new salary cap in mind.

It’s an interesting proposition and the one that both sides should probably start working from as a blueprint for further negotiations.

To let the NHL owners off the hook for bad decisions and bad contracts is ridiculous. Rearranging a legally signed contract that was allegedly negotiated in good faith should never happen. The players signed those deals thinking they would be paid in full, and they should be, no questions asked. It’s time for the NHL to get off their hardline stance and meet in the middle. The NHLPA is telling them that 50/50 is fine as long as everyone gets paid what’s coming to them, so why not take that offer and salvage the season?

quote:Originally posted by Pasty7Rearranging a legally signed contract that was allegedly negotiated in good faith should never happen. The players signed those deals thinking they would be paid in full, and they should be, no questions asked.

And yet, players have not been paid fully since the last CBA was signed, under the guise of an escrow payment. In the CBA that just expired, contracts were paid in full, however players had to put a percentage (10-20% I believe) into escrow. Once league revenues were calculated, the escrow amounts were then paid out to whichever party earned them. Although league revenues were increasing and I believe that players got their full amounts back every year, there was always the understanding that players could have lost that escrow amount back to the league, had revenues not been high enough.

Are you telling me a contract rollback is absolutely verboten, but paying a pile of your contract into forced escrow where you could very well lose it all is OK? What if the NHL, instead of asking for a rollback, said "fine players, we'll let you get paid in full - but escrow payments go up to 1/3 of your contract, and its nearly a certainty that you won't get it all back as your share of the revenue pie is going down"?

I think you're splitting hairs here.

quote:The way Fehr has the offer worded, players currently under contract would have 87 percent of that contract go against the salary cap, while 13 percent would not go against the cap.

This would allow the cap to shrink immediately while still allowing the players to get what is fairly and legally theirs. It will also allow salaries to fall in line as new contracts would be signed with the new salary cap in mind.

Interesting. Well, I guess we now know exactly what the locked out players care about the most. And its not the future financial health of the league...

Ok Beans, you are right it is not the same thing, but if the NHL owners can offer these contracts and then not full fill them because the CBA expired, then the players should be given the option to opt out of these contracts and become UFA's. If the Owners can just negociate there way out of contracts they offerd then why can't the players just void the contracts? I mean it goes one way why not the other.

I don't think you can consider players as free agents right now. Once the CBA is negotiated and the players are no longer locked out, they are expected to return to there clubs. The only league with a handshake agreement with the NHL is the KHL, where a player can avoid his NHL contractual obligations and the handshake agreement the KHL has with the NHL is even restricting. If a player wants to ply his trade in a European league he needs permission from the IIHF or the NHL once the CBA is finalized. What I wonder is, if the CBA is signed and a player is playing in another league and the IIHF has already granted that player permission to play, can he stay in that league should he choose not to play under his contract in the NHL. I would think any future negotiation with that league, or another not the NHL, would be restricted once that contract runs through. Looking at Nail Yakopov for example, the Hockey Canada didn't initially approve his transfer to the KHL and tried to force him back to Sarnia. I dont think its fair to sign a player to a contract, lower the amount he receives, restrict his movement in other competitive leagues and expect fair value on return.

quote:Originally posted by JOSHUACANADAIf a player wants to ply his trade in a European league he needs permission from the IIHF or the NHL once the CBA is finalized. What I wonder is, if the CBA is signed and a player is playing in another league and the IIHF has already granted that player permission to play, can he stay in that league should he choose not to play under his contract in the NHL. I would think any future negotiation with that league, or another not the NHL, would be restricted once that contract runs through.

AFAIK, most if not all under-contract NHL players currently playing in Europe, are playing for free. The teams they play for have agreed to cover insurance premiums for their NHL contracts (15-50K per month, depending on how big the NHL contract is), and perhaps a tiny bit more. I don't think that very many players that play in Europe now that would want to continue playing there once a new CBA is signed.

However, if a player wants to make a full switch - such as what OV has been talking about doing - they would have to get out of their NHL contract to do so. I think the only way a player can do that is to retire. Does someone else know for sure? I don't recall this even happening before, it may not be covered by the NHL CBA at all.

Ok Beans, you are right it is not the same thing, but if the NHL owners can offer these contracts and then not full fill them because the CBA expired, then the players should be given the option to opt out of these contracts and become UFA's. If the Owners can just negociate there way out of contracts they offerd then why can't the players just void the contracts? I mean it goes one way why not the other.

I won't bother with the argument about the escrow, Nux did that just fine. The players have been negotiating contracts with a potential 'clawback' since the last agreement, this is nothing new.

To the point of why can't players call themselves UFA's if the owners lock them out. What do you think is happening today! Player can go play in what ever league they want to play in right now!

What value would it be to an NHL player to be a UFA if the NHL is locked out?

I don't understand the argument.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

It's kind of simple Beans if the owners can offer contracts and then after the CBA expires change the conditions of these players contracts and pay them less. Then why can't the players simply say no we signed for this much with this NHL team if they are not going to pay that then i should be free to sign with any NHL team or in any other league I chose. I mean if its that easy to change a legal contract and all,

Pasty, they NHL players can play for who ever these choose to play for during the lock out.

You want to know why a player can't just call himself a UFA and play for another NHL team?? Simple. The CBA is the agreement that supercedes the player contract. It is the framework for how the league operates and it is an agreement between the league and ALL players. The standard player contract is the agreement between the player and the owner and must fit within the framework of the CBA.

When the league is not operating(via a lockout or a strike) then a player is free and clear to do what they please. When the league is operating, the CBA rules.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

Pasty, they NHL players can play for who ever these choose to play for during the lock out.

You want to know why a player can't just call himself a UFA and play for another NHL team?? Simple. The CBA is the agreement that supercedes the player contract. It is the framework for how the league operates and it is an agreement between the league and ALL players. The standard player contract is the agreement between the player and the owner and must fit within the framework of the CBA.

When the league is not operating(via a lockout or a strike) then a player is free and clear to do what they please. When the league is operating, the CBA rules.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

Beans the CBA is expired and the owners on the new CBA want to alter the leagally signed contracts and pay the players less. I'm not talking about during the lock out, i'm talking about when i new CBA is signed. If a players contract can be alterd to pay him less then why can't set player just void the contract altoghether, I mean if the owners can get out of paying what they promised why doesn't it work both ways.

quote:Originally posted by Pasty7Beans the CBA is expired and the owners on the new CBA want to alter the leagally signed contracts and pay the players less. I'm not talking about during the lock out, i'm talking about when i new CBA is signed. If a players contract can be alterd to pay him less then why can't set player just void the contract altoghether, I mean if the owners can get out of paying what they promised why doesn't it work both ways.

Good point. And hey, now that all player contracts are now void and there are no players, who exactly are the owners negotiating with? The NHL owners collectively own all rights to stadiums, team names and logos, marketing, TV contracts, etc. Now that there are no pesky player contracts to worry about, they can just unilaterally institute a new CBA the way they want it - say 30/70 split for players/owners, no unrestricted free agency ever, EL deals for 10 years, no arbitration, no guaranteed contracts, 1 year max deals.

Who wins in that scenario? It would not surprise me if the owners have thought of this scenario in some alternate universe, but with several hundred million dollars currently tied up in long term, guaranteed player contracts, it ain't gonna happen. Even with 30% of league revenues and an average salary of 1.2M, players will come back to a new NHL - it beats all alternatives out there.

Sarcasm aside I was refering more in terms of a player like Ovetchkin who once a new CBA was signed and if set CBA cuts his contract why would he be legally obligated to honour set contract? the owners didn't have to honour there end of the bargin

oh and even if they all opted out of there contracts they would still be negociating with the players because even if they are not under a current NHL contract they are still members of the NHLPA , Mathieu Darch Chris Campoli are perfect examples of guys without contracts but are still at the negociating table,,,,

But pasty you are talking about something that can already happen. A player does not have to honor his contract either. Look at Paul Ranger. Didn't want to play anymore so he stopped playing. The owner didn't pay him and his contract ran out. Now, he can go and play for who ever he wants to.

But for a player to play in the NHL his contact is for that team. He doesn't have to honour anything.

What's the point again?

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

Sarcasm aside I was refering more in terms of a player like Ovetchkin who once a new CBA was signed and if set CBA cuts his contract why would he be legally obligated to honour set contract? the owners didn't have to honour there end of the bargin

I don't think there is anything stopping OV from terminating his contract with WSH - via retirement from the NHL. I recall looking into ways NHL players could get out of contracts earlier this year (in a thread regarding Wade Redden) - contract law stipulates that a contract can be terminated if mutually agreed by both parties, but there is nothing in the CBA that deals with this. As beans said, contracts signed by NHL players have a clause in them that say they are ruled by the CBA.

I suppose the NHLPA or NHL never thought of a scenario where a player would willingly give up tens of millions of dollars in a guaranteed contract, and honestly, I can't see it either. In the case of OV, he has 88M owing to him over the next 9 years on a guaranteed contract. Even if he takes a CBA imposed rollback of 20%, thats still 71M over 9 years, guaranteed. There is not another league in the world that can guarantee OV 71M over the next 9 years.

quote:oh and even if they all opted out of there contracts they would still be negociating with the players because even if they are not under a current NHL contract they are still members of the NHLPA , Mathieu Darch Chris Campoli are perfect examples of guys without contracts but are still at the negociating table,,,,

Good point (for real this time ). I don't know what the official legal relationship is between a union and an employer - anyone out there know? If all NHL players walked away from their contracts, and there was no CBA in place, what would happen to the NHLPA? Would the NHL be able to unilaterally impose a new CBA?

There is law that discusses the decertification of a union, however this is not a union and employer decision. It's a union and member decision. If the players united and said they did not want the NHLPA anymore they can do that. But the NHL can not decide it doesn't want to work with the union any more.

Once a union is established the only way for that employer to terminate that relationship is to cease operations. However, they can not cease operations and have the same group start a new organization doing ultimately the same thing. So the NHL can not cease operations and restart a hockey league under a different name to dump the union.

At least that's how I understand it to work.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

Beans you are pretty much right. The only thing the league could really do is run with temporary players but ask the NFL how that turned out when they tried that.

Some labor leaders are saying the latest moves by the NHL are very borderline bad faith bargaining moves. To have a big public campaign, have the owners talk to the players, and now refuse to meet to continue bargaining. All classic moves of bad faith bargaining. I sure hope that not one of the owners discussed their position or what their real stance in the negotiation is with a player because then there is huge legal aspect of bargaining without the bargaining agents. A pretty big risk on the NHL part that will surely not go over well with NHLPA. On top of that, to refuse to meet and attempt to bargain off an offer that the NHL put a deadline on hints that they were never intending to agree to that offer. Again a show of bad faith bargaining.

Guest4178 ( )

Posted - 10/25/2012 : 10:42:33

Even U..S. President Barack Obama is weighing in on the lockout. He had this to say on the Jay Leno show last night:

“Every time these things happen, I just want to remind the owners and the players: you guys make money because you’ve got a whole bunch of fans out there who are working really hard. They buy tickets. They’re watching on TV,” Obama said in response to a viewer’s question. “Y’all should be able to figure this out. Get this done. The fans deserve it.”

And not to be outdone, U.S. Vice-president Joe Biden said that Gary Bettman wants to put the players back in chains.

And from the republican side, Mitt Romney has offered to reduce the taxes on any players making over $5 million, because they create jobs after all.

And former VP running mate Sarah Palin has offered to bring a U.S. team to Anchorage Alaska. She claimed that an Anchorage team has a better opportunity of attracting Russian-born players, because (and here it comes) you can see Russia from her back door, and her back door is just a few blocks from the Anchorage Arena!

Beans you are pretty much right. The only thing the league could really do is run with temporary players but ask the NFL how that turned out when they tried that.

Some labor leaders are saying the latest moves by the NHL are very borderline bad faith bargaining moves. To have a big public campaign, have the owners talk to the players, and now refuse to meet to continue bargaining. All classic moves of bad faith bargaining. I sure hope that not one of the owners discussed their position or what their real stance in the negotiation is with a player because then there is huge legal aspect of bargaining without the bargaining agents. A pretty big risk on the NHL part that will surely not go over well with NHLPA. On top of that, to refuse to meet and attempt to bargain off an offer that the NHL put a deadline on hints that they were never intending to agree to that offer. Again a show of bad faith bargaining.

Since you can't get off this bad faith bargaining kick, let me ask you a few questions:

- what of the two groups provided the initial offer and who was the first to provide an offer since the lockout officially began?- what group has launched a massive campaign on twitter, Facebook, and in other media driven to gain fan support?- what group is going out to practices with kids wearing NHLPA jerseys and making sure there are pictures and media behind every one of them?

Before you start talking crap about the NHL and bad faith bargaining you best look at it from both sides. Consider the NHL initially asked to bargain over a year ago and the PA said they were not ready. Consider the NHL has twice brought proposals to the payers and twice the PA has come back to the table going in a completely different direction. Consider that the NHL's media is pushed 100% through Bettman and Daly where the NHLPA has come from not only,the Fehr’s but also countless other players.

What you are accusing the NHL of doing is the exact same thing as the PA has done. And of course labour leaders would side with the union. I bet you can not research a single situation where any labour leader has not supported the union side of any labour dispute in the history of time.

I trust the comments from a labour leader about as far as they should be trusted...........

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

"Consider the NHL has twice brought proposals to the payers and twice the PA has come back to the table going in a completely different direction."

Yes the NHL has twice brought proposals and yes the NHLPA has gone in different directions. Everyone of the NHL proposals has been besicly the current system with an imediate 50/50 split (actually the first couple were 43-57 in the owners favor if i'm not mistaken) and a few slight changes to entry level deals and FA's. So basicly in 5 6 or 7 years whatever the new term on the CBA is, we shall be in the exact same situation. The cap will have gone up signifigantly, the owners will be once again handing out ludicrous contracts and then what? Will there be another lock out, and the players will have to drop to 40% of HRR? Maybe a comlpetly different direction is a good thing?

"Consider the NHL has twice brought proposals to the payers and twice the PA has come back to the table going in a completely different direction."

Yes the NHL has twice brought proposals and yes the NHLPA has gone in different directions. Everyone of the NHL proposals has been besicly the current system with an imediate 50/50 split (actually the first couple were 43-57 in the owners favor if i'm not mistaken) and a few slight changes to entry level deals and FA's. So basicly in 5 6 or 7 years whatever the new term on the CBA is, we shall be in the exact same situation. The cap will have gone up signifigantly, the owners will be once again handing out ludicrous contracts and then what? Will there be another lock out, and the players will have to drop to 40% of HRR? Maybe a comlpetly different direction is a good thing?

Ok, so thanks for not answering any of the questions. But I will leave it alone for now.

Firstly, let me preface this by saying that in the past 7 years of this deal the league revenues have increased by almost 50%, the player's salaries have increased by 30%, but the owners profits have not increased one iota. That is an issue that needs to be fixed.

However, you and I finally agree on something. Unless there is fundamental changes in the activities of the owners in the NHL than I whole heartedly agree that the situation will not be any different at the end of the next CBA.

Using the NFL as an example, the owners give 100% of control to the league office. If owners step out of line they are fined or punished in other ways. That is the fundamental reason the NFL system works. It's not the owners or the players running the league, it is the league running the league. The NHL is ran by the owners and they do make and changes the rules.

Unless this changes, this situation will repeat. However, even if the league was fixed and the owners were penalized for not following the rules, anything less than a 50/50 split is pointless.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

"Firstly, let me preface this by saying that in the past 7 years of this deal the league revenues have increased by almost 50%, the player's salaries have increased by 30%, but the owners profits have not increased one iota. That is an issue that needs to be fixed."

My only issue with this is that it is the owners who increased players salaries by 30%, and it is the responsibility of the owner of any buisness to manage his earnings and turn a profit,

now that being said i think we may have found something we can both agree on Beans, as long as i understand you right and correct me if i`m wrong I think we both can agree a NHL:

Without Guaranteed contracts,with a 50-50 split of HRRA neutral board of governers (or something to that effect) to run the league

this would be a better NHL, the only catch would be that all current contract in my opinion must be honour 100% which would be really tough to do because that would mean guys like Gomez would have a guranteed contract while Geztlaf would not.

"Firstly, let me preface this by saying that in the past 7 years of this deal the league revenues have increased by almost 50%, the player's salaries have increased by 30%, but the owners profits have not increased one iota. That is an issue that needs to be fixed."

My only issue with this is that it is the owners who increased players salaries by 30%, and it is the responsibility of the owner of any buisness to manage his earnings and turn a profit,

With a little help from an ever increasing salary cap, and even more importantly, an increasing salary floor... Which were all tied to increasing league revenues. It's not as if owners just decided to give out 30% raises for no reason

It does not matter who made the first offer, the second offer or even the last offer. Both sides have to agree to bargain from both sides positions not just their own.

The NHL and the PA have done public campaigns but the difference being the PA has not made any offer public before the NHL has had a chance to respond. The NHL put there offer public on their website before the PA even sent a communication to the players.

Its great the players have made themselves available to the community during the lockout, if the NHL would let them wear club jerseys then it would likely be that much more special to the kids who see them

Here is an article from TSN that is very neutral about it. It outlines one reason some labour leaders are saying the NHL is getting close to a bad faith bargaining position. It is very odd to have the owners contact the employees while bargaining. It is against all labour laws to bargain without the bargaining agents. There is nice memorandum telling the owners not to bargain. And like the article says, the NHLPA would not likely pursue it anyways. http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=408115

We agreed long ago that the owners need to fix their problems and the players have to realize the owners need to make money too. RIght now I see offers from both sides that will make it happen. Both sides have to agree to sit down and work off of each others offers to come to deal. The makings seem to be there, the dog and pony shows from both sides are getting ridiculous.

So Chop, how is is bargaining in bad faith when the article you provides states it was the players contacting their owners and the owners were give a window and explicit instructions on what they can and can not talk to the players about. Also, the memo clearly and completely states the NHLPA as the only body the NHL will be negotiate with.

This bad faith bargaining thing is not even a stretch. It's absurd. Who care if the PA does not have time to respond to the offer before the NHL posts it to their website? They are making the proposal to the PA then postings. What's wrong with that?

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

Beans, just like I do, you like pick out just the points in the article that suit your argument. The point of the article is that doing what the NHL did and allowing that to happen is pushing the labour relations towards bad faith. It very clearly relates what the NHL did to the labour laws in Canada. It is not wrong to post the offer before the other side can respond but it is a move to put more public pressure on one side or the other. Again its close to bad faith.To me its very interesting the tactics that are being done by both sides.

I am sure, since you are mostly pro owner side, that you believe the players were calling the owners to ask what was going. I am also sure the its true what Patrick Marleau said today that the NHL had already cancelled Nov games back in the summer. Its all posturing. I don't like that either side has chosen to play the whole thing out in the media.

Anyways thought it would be fun to discuss. Did not really think it was overly absurd given that in almost every article relating the NHL lockout to the law, it is mentioned that the NHL is pushing the bounds of bad faith negotiation.

Well I completely disagree that I am cherry picking anything. There is a clear different between breaking the rules and bumping against them. Secondly, the absurd portion is that you can't see the NHLPA bumping up against the exact same rules as the NHL.

Finally, where there is logic and reason the truth is not hard to find. The NHL has stated the lose of revenue through the end of November is around $720 million. For anyone to believe that these businessmen would plan in advance to cancel games through November and forgo 3/4 of a billion dollars is illogical and not reasonable.

Patrick Marleau comments are pathetic and weak.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

quote:Originally posted by Porkchop73I am sure, since you are mostly pro owner side, that you believe the players were calling the owners to ask what was going. I am also sure the its true what Patrick Marleau said today that the NHL had already cancelled Nov games back in the summer.

What Marleau said today was pure idiocy - does he really think that the owners are colluding together to cancel a portion of the season, as far back as the summer? Why? To what end? How does that make any sense at all? This is what you get when you combine lightly educated hockey players with social media. And honestly, it doesn't put players in a very good light. The NHLPA should consider muzzling it's membership... Or at least screening what they say

I am quite certain that if the NHLPA had accepted any of the owner offers, we'd all be watching hockey now

I was being sarcastic about the Marleau comment. It was referencing that it would be slightly absurd to believe the NHL statement that the players were calling the owners to find out what was going on. The same as it would be absurd to believe Marleaus comment.

Some people are going to believe what the owners are feeding the public, some are going to believe the players. Since I have an interest in legal matters, I found it interesting all of the articles mentioning the NHL tactics as a form of negotiating in bad faith. A quick search and not one article mentions the PA and bad faith bargaining. I just found it interesting and thought it would be fun to discuss and see what the good folks on PUH forums thought. Its good to see the strong opinions for one side or the other.

I disagree the owners twice brought proposals, with the intention of trying to salvage a season. 3 offers have been brought forward by the NHL. The 1st was a 43% proposal with a reduction in HRR with major contract and negotiating concessions, which was meant to be the starting point the owners wished to negotiate from and in no way an attempt to salvage a season. It was in no way mathmatically possible and undermined years of negotiating for players rights the PA had fought for.

The second was similar, but brought the offer to 47% with the same contract negotiation concessions, again not meant to bring the players to the table and salvage a season. The NHLPA carefully considered both offers and took there time to make sure there wasn't a way to make tweaks to them and save a season. Players saw these offers as what they were, bad and bad. These offer heavily favoured the richer franchises by taking money from the players current contracts to bring struggling franchise closer to break even. These offers would not have fixed the long term problems of the league, as they would be in a similar position at the end of the CBA and the PA would be negotiating with the owners from that split in %. Based on history the next CBA the league would then ask for more concessions and the NHLPA chose not to negotiate from that starting point, based on the massive reduction in wages, negotiating rights and HRR.

The players, IMO, brought to the table the first real proposal to the table with smaller yet still massive concessions of there own, intent to salvage the season, allowing the owners to right there own ship without taking all of the financial loss to fix the owners situation and without the loss of hard fought negotiating rights, which are topics the PA would call deal breakers. The owners took minutes to shoot it down and went to the media immediately to undermine the leadership of the NHLPA and imposed the lockout shortly there after.

Following the cancellation of the preseason and the loss of Oct games, the NHL finally came to the table with what I believe was a reasonable proposal, but it was also 1 month after they imposed the lockout and the players had started to lose income. The offer still asked for major concessions, but backed off the hard fought negotiating rights the players would never have accepted. The make whole provision and other small details were stumbling blocks, but as the league was willing to change the details of this proposal should the players use the math and formula's detailed in this proposal, the NHL was prepared to salvage a season. Does anybody fully understand this make whole provision the NHL was offering, which Fehr and company took there time to consider and understand. This year the Players would earn 50% revenue and escrow the additional unpaid 7% income. In following seasons the this escrow amount would be paid back to players and count against the 50% revenue split unofficially making the players share in future years less than 50% again, with no growth in revenue the owners offer again could have had the players share of revenue at 43% in future years, like there initial bad offer, this was a backslide not a move forward. The Owner's tried to pull a fast one, Fehr and company caught it and Bettman spun it like the players are the ones who caused the loss of the 82 game season. I dont know the exact details of the 3 players proposal meant to salvage a 82 game season, but I know the math was used attempt to come down to the 50/50 split the owners want, but on terms the PA would accept. These offers to salvage a season were also dismissed in minutes and the NHL again went to work undermining the PA leadership by allowing contact between the players and the Owners, while I believe the real person the owners wanted to contact was the players agents to leverage a deal, which in my opinion is not the best possible deal the NHL can put on the table.

I dont know why Bean's is so entrenched in the Owners side, I can only assume he is in some way an owner and understand an owners perspective, where I am an employee and side more towards employee rights. Dont take this as a shot on you Bean's, but the last offer by the NHL was crap, with hidden tactics, meant only as a public opinion spin and the PA knew it.

I am starting to think the true goal of the NHL is a 43% - 45% revenue split, as after considering this Make Whole provision the NHL tried to backdoor more and its effect of revenue sharing on current signed players. I know the CBA ends in a 50% split, but that would then be the starting negotiating point. As history has told us then the owners would ask for additional concessions at the conclusion of that CBA. This would make the NHL the most slanted revenue wise league of the top 4 sports in North America towards ownership. And some suggest Fehr is the problem!

I disagree the owners twice brought proposals, with the intention of trying to salvage a season. 3 offers have been brought forward by the NHL. The 1st was a 43% proposal with a reduction in HRR with major contract and negotiating concessions, which was meant to be the starting point the owners wished to negotiate from and in no way an attempt to salvage a season. It was in no way mathmatically possible and undermined years of negotiating for players rights the PA had fought for.

The second was similar, but brought the offer to 47% with the same contract negotiation concessions, again not meant to bring the players to the table and salvage a season. The NHLPA carefully considered both offers and took there time to make sure there wasn't a way to make tweaks to them and save a season. Players saw these offers as what they were, bad and bad. These offer heavily favoured the richer franchises by taking money from the players current contracts to bring struggling franchise closer to break even. These offers would not have fixed the long term problems of the league, as they would be in a similar position at the end of the CBA and the PA would be negotiating with the owners from that split in %. Based on history the next CBA the league would then ask for more concessions and the NHLPA chose not to negotiate from that starting point, based on the massive reduction in wages, negotiating rights and HRR.

The players, IMO, brought to the table the first real proposal to the table with smaller yet still massive concessions of there own, intent to salvage the season, allowing the owners to right there own ship without taking all of the financial loss to fix the owners situation and without the loss of hard fought negotiating rights, which are topics the PA would call deal breakers. The owners took minutes to shoot it down and went to the media immediately to undermine the leadership of the NHLPA and imposed the lockout shortly there after.

Following the cancellation of the preseason and the loss of Oct games, the NHL finally came to the table with what I believe was a reasonable proposal, but it was also 1 month after they imposed the lockout and the players had started to lose income. The offer still asked for major concessions, but backed off the hard fought negotiating rights the players would never have accepted. The make whole provision and other small details were stumbling blocks, but as the league was willing to change the details of this proposal should the players use the math and formula's detailed in this proposal, the NHL was prepared to salvage a season. Does anybody fully understand this make whole provision the NHL was offering, which Fehr and company took there time to consider and understand. This year the Players would earn 50% revenue and escrow the additional unpaid 7% income. In following seasons the this escrow amount would be paid back to players and count against the 50% revenue split unofficially making the players share in future years less than 50% again, with no growth in revenue the owners offer again could have had the players share of revenue at 43% in future years, like there initial bad offer, this was a backslide not a move forward. The Owner's tried to pull a fast one, Fehr and company caught it and Bettman spun it like the players are the ones who caused the loss of the 82 game season. I dont know the exact details of the 3 players proposal meant to salvage a 82 game season, but I know the math was used attempt to come down to the 50/50 split the owners want, but on terms the PA would accept. These offers to salvage a season were also dismissed in minutes and the NHL again went to work undermining the PA leadership by allowing contact between the players and the Owners, while I believe the real person the owners wanted to contact was the players agents to leverage a deal, which in my opinion is not the best possible deal the NHL can put on the table.

I dont know why Bean's is so entrenched in the Owners side, I can only assume he is in some way an owner and understand an owners perspective, where I am an employee and side more towards employee rights. Dont take this as a shot on you Bean's, but the last offer by the NHL was crap, with hidden tactics, meant only as a public opinion spin and the PA knew it.

One of the big surprises of this job action has been the lack of reasonable offers from either side. The first two NHL proposals were definitely garbage, but the first proposal from the NHLPA was also garbage - it was just different looking garbage. The owners only had to see "revert back to 57% of revenue in the final year" to conclude it was a non-starter, so why are you surprised they sai no so quickly? The only remotely reasonable offer (and I Am generous with my use of reasonable) was the player offer to slowly drop their share to 50/50 over 4 years. I didn't see the rest of the details though, so I can't comment on the rest.

The main problem we have now is, how do you marry contracts given in a 57% world with the realities of a 50% world? The players seem to want to roll back revenue to 50/50, but still expect teams to be hamstrung by deals given in a different era. It can not work.

NHL revenues over the past 7 years is $17 billionThe players have shared in $9.69 billion dollars, which is 100% profit to the player. The owners have shared in $7.3 billion, of which they still have to pay all the other expenses of owning a hockey team. Building, lease, equipment, travel, medical, pension contribution, other staff, the list goes on and on and one.

AFTER PAYING ALL OTHER HOCKEY RELATED COSTS

The NHL owners have enjoyed around $1 billion in profits.

The players put $9 billion in the jeans playing in the NHL without risking a single dollar of their own money.

The NHL owners have put around $1 billion in their jeans after putting hudreds of millions of dollars into buying a team and countless millions more on operating expenses.

Only a union can justify a statement that the owners risking their money and pocketing far less money than the players are being 'unfair' when the players risk nothing and get 9 times the reward.

Can someone help me understand why that concept is so difficult to understand??

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

Ok, lets look at the facts then. The owners have been given the last 7 years to right the ship and they have made it worse on themselves. The bottom 20 teams can't seem to make a profit while the top 10 rich teams are only gonna get richer. Why can't you seem to catch this concept. 30 teams can't seem to share $1 billion equitably while 700+ players play for the $9 billion profit you suggest. The owners want to make more % of profit than any other major league in North America and are squeezing the players, while the players are making concession's. If you are only on the side of the owners, then you must not understand employee rights. The owners signed these players to these contracts and are trying to rewrite deals they offered by circumventing individual signings and renegotiating contracts at fractions of commitments made not 2 months ago.

I am not surprised you didn't respond to the Make Whole provision of my earlier arguement, because it does not support your clear pro owner point of view.

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

Let's look at facts -

NHL revenues over the past 7 years is $17 billionThe players have shared in $9.69 billion dollars, which is 100% profit to the player. The owners have shared in $7.3 billion, of which they still have to pay all the other expenses of owning a hockey team. Building, lease, equipment, travel, medical, pension contribution, other staff, the list goes on and on and one.

AFTER PAYING ALL OTHER HOCKEY RELATED COSTS

The NHL owners have enjoyed around $1 billion in profits.

The players put $9 billion in the jeans playing in the NHL without risking a single dollar of their own money.

The NHL owners have put around $1 billion in their jeans after putting hudreds of millions of dollars into buying a team and countless millions more on operating expenses.

Only a union can justify a statement that the owners risking their money and pocketing far less money than the players are being 'unfair' when the players risk nothing and get 9 times the reward.

Can someone help me understand why that concept is so difficult to understand??

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

You honestl said 'employee rights' in your comment. I understand employee rights very clearly. This has nothing to do with employee rights. This is simple economics and the owners need to make money or they leave.

Let me ask you a question: if the owners are so bad at running the business and have every chance to fix everything, why don't the players get together and run a league on their own. What do they need the owners for?..

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

Guest9888 ( )

Posted - 10/27/2012 : 22:42:02

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

Let's look at facts -

NHL revenues over the past 7 years is $17 billionThe players have shared in $9.69 billion dollars, which is 100% profit to the player. The owners have shared in $7.3 billion, of which they still have to pay all the other expenses of owning a hockey team. Building, lease, equipment, travel, medical, pension contribution, other staff, the list goes on and on and one.

AFTER PAYING ALL OTHER HOCKEY RELATED COSTS

The NHL owners have enjoyed around $1 billion in profits.

The players put $9 billion in the jeans playing in the NHL without risking a single dollar of their own money.

The NHL owners have put around $1 billion in their jeans after putting hudreds of millions of dollars into buying a team and countless millions more on operating expenses.

Ooooohhh. I love playing skewed math.

That $9.7B is shared by 5250 (7 years with 750 players per year) players where the $1B is shared by 210 (30 owners over 7 years) owners.

Carry the 1 drop the next number down, that would mean on average over a player made $1.8M/yr give or take a few hundred thousand. A player's average career is 6 yrs or so at least that is what is being bandied around. So an average player career makes $11M, again give or take a few hundred thou. But this is not what an average player pockets. Nope, see below the player's other hockey related expenses.

The average owner in that time on average made $4.7M/yr. The average owner's career is hmmm what 15 or 20yrs. For the sake of easy calculations, say 10 yrs. That means that an average owner's career intake is $47M. This is all in profit no other additional cost related to hockey here.

So even in this messed up CBA where the NHLPA takes in a 57% revenue, an average owner makes 4.5 times as much as a player over their average career. Who is getting a raw deal in this?

Now when I say owner, I mean the person or group owning the team before you jump all over the fact that a team's owner is a bigger group so they take a smaller cut. Don't forget also that the players lose a fair percentage to their agent, personal training and nutritionist above the team stuff.

So the owner puts up between $200 and $400 million of his cash and gets around $4.5 million of an annual return. That a solid 1-2% return on his investment. Sounds great hey! How many of you would allow their money to work that hard and gain a monstrous return like 1%!

Also, tell me a single company in the world where the corporation is making profits in terms of 4x their average employee salary.

Finally, based on these numbers, the top 20 highest paid players made MORE than the 30 owners combined last year.

Remember that part about reason and logic???

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

Guest9888 ( )

Posted - 10/28/2012 : 09:23:41

quote:Originally posted by Beans15[Also, tell me a single company in the world where the corporation is making profits in terms of 4x their average employee salary.

That is assuming of course a corporation only lasts 10yrs. In actuality, a corporation has no limits in its productivity career unlike a player.

If it is so bad to be an owner, why don't the owners contract the league or move teams to more profitable locations? Forget all this revenue sharing bs negotiations and just tell the NHLPA, if you don't take this offer we will fold unprofitable teams. Why bother propping up unprofitable teams if profit and revenue is all that is important to the NHL?

In the real corporate world if a part of your organization has been bleeding for so may years, it gets shut down or sold. How come they don't behave like the real corporation then?

quote:Originally posted by Beans15[Also, tell me a single company in the world where the corporation is making profits in terms of 4x their average employee salary.

That is assuming of course a corporation only lasts 10yrs. In actuality, a corporation has no limits in its productivity career unlike a player.

If it is so bad to be an owner, why don't the owners contract the league or move teams to more profitable locations? Forget all this revenue sharing bs negotiations and just tell the NHLPA, if you don't take this offer we will fold unprofitable teams. Why bother propping up unprofitable teams if profit and revenue is all that is important to the NHL?

In the real corporate world if a part of your organization has been bleeding for so may years, it gets shut down or sold. How come they don't behave like the real corporation then?

Great point and I don't disagree with contraction. But that still doesn't change the fact that Sidney Crosby will make 8 times as much as Mario Lemiuex and Crosby has zero skin in the game. Mario has to put up 100% of the operating costs to get far less return.

50/50 and making that happen today is the minimum starting point in my opinion.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

Guest9888 ( )

Posted - 10/28/2012 : 19:29:44

quote:Originally posted by Beans15Great point and I don't disagree with contraction. But that still doesn't change the fact that Sidney Crosby will make 8 times as much as Mario Lemiuex and Crosby has zero skin in the game. Mario has to put up 100% of the operating costs to get far less return.

50/50 and making that happen today is the minimum starting point in my opinion.

Well at least we agree on a few things.

As for the players getting paid more than the owners, isn't that a problem of the owner's making? The owners should only pay what they want to pay and if they want to pay a player 8 times an owner, that's the owner's fault.. The players can get paid for what ever they are worth and hold out if they don't want to be paid.

quote:Originally posted by Beans15Great point and I don't disagree with contraction. But that still doesn't change the fact that Sidney Crosby will make 8 times as much as Mario Lemiuex and Crosby has zero skin in the game. Mario has to put up 100% of the operating costs to get far less return.

50/50 and making that happen today is the minimum starting point in my opinion.

Well at least we agree on a few things.

As for the players getting paid more than the owners, isn't that a problem of the owner's making? The owners should only pay what they want to pay and if they want to pay a player 8 times an owner, that's the owner's fault.. The players can get paid for what ever they are worth and hold out if they don't want to be paid.

You are right.....wait, no you are not. There is that little thing about the owners having to pay players 57% of the revenues that gets in the way of the owners managing their costs. So even if he top paid guys didn't get paid as much the owners would still have to fork over the money regardless.

Remember that 50/50 thing I was talking about?

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!